[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Meeting public demand
In my opinion, some of the best ways to educate the
public about things 'nuclear' come in the form of
lessons in the schools, particularly if the teacher
can demonstrate natural radioactivity using a mineral
specimen and also demonstrate (using a survey meter or
scaler) the existence of natural background radiation.
This could even be done as part of a geology
(minerals) lesson that shows that radioactivity is a
part of nature.
Science classes should be taught properly so that kids
know enough about concepts that they question scare
tactics and lurid language. Teaching critical
thinking (about lots of different things, not just
nuclear issues) should be a part of science class.
I really don't know where "wanting to be a victim"
fits into all of this?! It seems to me that some
people here are interested in a change of a status quo
that is scientifically invalid. That doesn't sound
like 'wanting to be a victim' to me.
My belief is that if we want to talk about "victims,"
that the real "victims" are people like the
Californians who have been hornswoggled by a certain
segment who _call themselves 'environmentalists'_ into
believing that living under a pall of smog is
preferable to living with Rancho Seco N.P. operating.
I am not trying to 'pick on' California in particular,
but rather to use it as an example. Similar comments
could be made about the shutdown of Maine Yankee up in
New England.
A number of years ago, the Sierra Club was in favor of
nuclear energy. They changed their position under
pressure from activists. During the same time frame
in the 1970's-80's, the Sierra Club's effectiveness in
conserving public lands diminished as they began to
focus on other issues.
A true environmentalist in California would have no
problem with Rancho Seco being operated [properly of
course] and would work on conserving that State's
threatened wildlands and on preserving open spaces
along with solutions to air quality problems.
Unfortunately, most people who call themselves
'environmentalists' become very superficial about it
when it comes to their own town's housing development
encroachment on natural lands [after all, they want to
live in a luxury home in the hills], or their own
SUV's emissions. Thus, they slack back and do what's
'popular' [in the sense that a movie star is popular],
not what's right for the environment. The 'tragedy of
the commons' is that Californians become victims of
the superficiality and derailing of their
environmental movement, and live in an ever more
smoggy, crowded situation.
There are a few worthy exceptions such as The Nature
Conservancy and similar land conservation trusts, and
those who work to promote acceptable public transit
solutions in traffic-congested areas. I am strongly
in favor of this form of environmentalism.
Now, I've wandered pretty far off-topic.
~Ruth S.
--- William V Lipton <liptonw@DTEENERGY.COM> wrote:
> My point, exactly. This is but one more example to
> refute those who say that,
> if only the "public" had the facts, they would make
> the right decision
> regarding radiological risks, i.e. the
> "media-Clinton-Norm
> Cohen-toothfairy-hollywood celebrities-..." antinuke
> conspiracy. Such
> thinking is, at best, naive, and is generally a
> Linus blanket for those who
> want to be victims.
>
> I hope that Radsafe does not degenerate into a Cave
> of Adullam. (1Sam.22)
>
> The opinions expressed are strictly mine.
> It's not about dose, it's about trust.
> Let's look at the real problem, for a change.
>
> Bill Lipton
> liptonw@dteenergy.com
>
> Ruth Sponsler wrote:
>
> > That is funny! Logically, by measurement of
> > background radiation, the hotbed of
> anti-nuclearism
> > should be in Louisiana or along the Southern
> Atlantic
> > Coast!
> >
> > I hope none of these activists in Boulder Colorado
> > lives in a stone house (external gamma from stone)
> or
> > in a basement apartment (radon), climbs '14-ers'
> > [14,000 foot mountains] or rides their bike up in
> > Leadville (cosmic).
> >
> > ~Ruth 2
> >
> > There is some irony that
> > > one of the hotbeds of anti-nuclearism is in
> Boulder
> > > Colorado. If those students were really afraid
> of
> > > radiation and knew anything about natural
> radiation,
> > > they certainly wouldn't go to college in
> Colorado.
> > > They live where they get an annual dose of 1 Rem
> and
> > > demonstrate against nuclear power plants. That
> is
> > > not the result of knowledge and rational
> thought.
> > >
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do You Yahoo!?
> > Yahoo! Sports - Coverage of the 2002 Olympic Games
> > http://sports.yahoo.com
> >
>
************************************************************************
> > You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe
> mailing list. To unsubscribe,
> > send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu
> Put the text "unsubscribe
> > radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the
> e-mail, with no subject line.
> > You can view the Radsafe archives at
> http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/
>
>
************************************************************************
> You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing
> list. To unsubscribe,
> send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu Put
> the text "unsubscribe
> radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail,
> with no subject line.
> You can view the Radsafe archives at
> http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Sports - Coverage of the 2002 Olympic Games
http://sports.yahoo.com
************************************************************************
You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,
send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu Put the text "unsubscribe
radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line.
You can view the Radsafe archives at http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/